Article 29: 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

encyclopedia (n.) 1530s, "course of instruction," from Modern Latin encyclopaedia (c.1500), literally "training in a circle," i.e. the "circle" of arts and sciences, the essentials of a liberal education; from enkyklios "circular," and paideia “education”.

According to some accounts such as the American Heritage Dictionary copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia.

20m plunder v. production and human livestock, classical Trivium as a system of creating production to be plundered… farming plunder

21m Latin education and the Divine Right of Kings, organic unity and feudalism, legitimizing the great chain of being (methods of authority), using the battlefield and education to subjugate individuals for lack of Knowledge.

22m Legitimizing the storyteller as the authority of the day, group-think, authority to control human resources. Any citizen can become an individual through learning habits of self-reliance

23m “Authorities” (educators, sophists) define the “Grammar” of the Classical Trivium, thus making the “Logic” a belief, not an understanding. No knowledge is necessary for belief, in fact belief is often what fills the void created when Knowledge is absent.

24m Unified systems of knowledge, cybernetics and the ship of state (Plato), first principles and common ground (Logic) necessary for linguistic communication. The use of these ideologies to create state systems.

Richard Hakluyt (c. 1552 or 1553 – 23 November 1616) was an English writer. He is known for promoting the settlement of North America by the English through his works, notably Divers Voyages Touching the Discoverie of America (1582) and The Principal Navigations, Voiages, Traffiques and Discoueries of the English Nation (1589–1600).

31m Isocrates and literacy as a form of slavery (i.e. sophism) until the reader learns how to identify reality and remove unreality (i.e. logic).

32m closed systems of learning to maintain the city-states, aristocracy, and ruling class to manage the polity (public); educating the kings, adopting education systems to gain power over the polity, dichotomy of control, creating knowledge gaps to create “power”.

33m focus on significant and substantial, discard the arbitrary, dismiss the irrational. Sayers’ biases and the basis of Christian Homeschooling in America.

34m Sayers’ system as the “closest to the perfection of Plato’s Republic” – Freemasonry

35m Christian Homeschooling and predefined grammar, infecting the logic by not asking preliminary questions to identify that which exists, reality from unreality (Sayers’ seeds of irrationality)

36m History of Ideas in relation to the Trivium Method contrasted to the Classical Trivium and the history of creating organic unity

44m filling in between Isocrates and the Freemasons, Jesuits and the Ratio Studiorum, which was rejected by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Ratio Studiorum as continuation of organic unity under godhead of theology.

45m Thomas Jefferson (post-revolution) goes to William and Mary and has the Classical Trivium removed from the curriculum, breaking the mechanism of British perpetuation of their organic unity

47m Education as a tool of creating culture, its how the state reproduces itself, “reality” filtered through he prescribed rhetoric of the state,

48m Ignatius Loyola, Alumbrados, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola as the origins of the esoteric organic unity progressed by the Jesuits, various flavors of organic unity (various empires through time), sacrifice of the individual to the state

50m Bavarian Illuminati as intellectual group fighting against organic unity and divine right of kings in Europe. “Philo’s Reply to Questions Concerning His Association with the Illuminati” Reply by Jeva Singh Anand reveals the personal conversations between Adam Weishaupt and Baron von Knigge prior to Knigge’s resignation from the Bavarian Illuminati and the promotion of revolutionary publisher J.C. Bode.

51m Thomas Paine’s references to Samuel Prichard’s “Freemasonry is based on the foundation of the Liberal Arts” quote, Illuminati as a system trying to do away with the state, Isidore of Seville and the creation of civil polity by limited education

52m Bavarian Illuminati vs. Religion and the State, Freemasonry as the genitalia of the state and the injection of organic unity throughout indigenous populations, Illuminati plans to use for the state to reproduce itself via taking over Freemasonry.

55m Juxtaposing internet lore vs. actual artifacts and evidence of the Bavarian Illuminati, similar to Jesuits in seeing value of controlling education, 1610 Wood Manuscript (The Hiram Key by Lomas and Knight)

56m Individual Liberty based on that which exists vs. irrational illusions of Authority, Bonneville, Jefferson, and the unknown history of Bavarian Illuminati influence in America’s origins.

57m Social Circle Freemasonic Lodge, papers published by J.C. Bode of the Bavarian Illuminati, promoted after Knigge’s resignation, connections to Prussian education.

58m Johann Fichte’s references to Johann Pestalozzi’s organic unity method of schooling and creation of the Prussian education system, giving birth to Romantic Nationalism as opposed to the Jeffersonian ideas of nationhood.

59m Milton Peterson’s works on Thomas Jefferson, rejection of classical forms of the Trivium as being connected to the Great Chain of Being, i.e. a caste society subjugating individuals to illusory authority

1h1m ideas of creating a balanced government based on first principles subject to existence, not dogma; derivative proofs of non-aggression undermined by changes in education system which Jefferson feared, J.J. Rousseau, John Locke, The Meaning of Meaning, particularity and universiality, from Charlemagne through to the 21st Century.

1h5m Jefferson displacing the Classical Trivium at the University of Virginia, Jefferson laments genocide of indigenous languages and loss of etymology.

1h6m encryption of language enables selective power transfer

1h8m how to preserve the first principles which inspired the Constitution

1h16m Legacy of Alcuin of York, creating a duality in Christianity, “othering” of the natural world, Basil Bernstein’s work on the classical Trivium, Noah Webster, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Emerson and Thoreau, Rousseau’s social contract, liberal arts as chains of garland flung over reality, Bavarian Illuminati

1h17m Epistemological cartoons instead of getting into the details and artifacts, Techne (Technology) as a Craft to propel Culture (see: Freemasonry), Thomas Paine quote on education and knowledge of language vs. knowledge of things, Syntax and Statecraft in history

1h19m Destutt De Tracy: how to define and identify in order to think clearly and progress to understanding

1h20m Prussian Nationalism, Hegel and the obsolescence of the Divine Right of Kings and “Authority” in general, discovering that life is not how we were taught it is as a result of the Prussian education system changing America away from natural rights liberalism

1h21m systems of natural rights and state education are not compatible

1h22m unitary education by congress is in direct contradiction to the founding principles of America, collectivism, pre-amble missing from Constitution, ambiguity therefore included unnecessarily

1h24m Classical Trivium imparting language without defense against unreality, thus creates a system of control

1h25m without defense against unreality, society becomes skewed and actions in conflict with needs of survival, as a result of Enkyklios Paideia introduced into England by the Venetian Black Noblity

1h28m Wilhelm Wundt and the “Clockwork Orange” mentality of treating people as mechanical toys, to be manipulated; and how asking questions is the key to circumventing Wundtian control systems

1h30m Frederick the Great and the Gymnasium of Prussian Education, Obama’s recent references to the value of Prussian industrial training

1h31m John Taylor Gatto’s “Underground History of American Education” referring to Prussian indoctrination methods being used in America, Prussian principles displace American first princples imparted in Constitution

1h34m Frederick the Great May 1, 1786 creating constitutions of Freemasonry, similar degrees to draw people into the Illuminati plan by imitating Freemasonry

1h35m Reworking masonic texts to re-present the ideas to foment revolution, Amis Reunis, Lodge of the Nine Sisters, and the Social Circle, French Revolution, Congress of Wilhelmsbad, Baron Knigge and the attempts to recruit powerful figures into their stable of talent. Hegel, Herter, Mozart, Goethe, Zeitgiest (spirit of the age)

1h38m Cecil Rhodes and fellow Freemasons creating British organic unity via a Secret Society based on the methods of the Jesuits (Ratio Studiorum)

1h39m Ben Franklin and the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, representing the Nine Muses (9 liberal arts) as set down by Martianus Capella, Destutt De Tracy, Voltaire members of the lodge, Jefferson’s rejection of their first principles, Positive vs. Negative origins of Government

1h41m Jefferson’s own contradictions (not perfect) but noted the success of America dependent on independence from British linguistic controls

1h42m Cecil Rhodes and the Jesuits, organic unity common to plans of monopoly, power, and empire, tracing back to the Indian (of India) monitorial schools (pedagogical control of group by authority at the front of the room), another brick in the wall as the craft of masonry

Cecil John Rhodes PC, DCL (5 July 1853 – 26 March 1902) was an English-born South African businessman, mining magnate, and politician. He was the founder of the diamond company De Beers, and an ardent believer in British colonialism, he was the founder of the state of Rhodesia, which was named after him. He set up the provisions of the Rhodes Scholarship, which is funded by his estate. Rhodes and his legacy are memorialized in the 1966 textbook “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time” by Dr. Carroll Quigley, professor at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service.

1h43m Cecil Rhodes goal to change American Constitution to bring America back under control of Britain by rings-within-rings, using Rhodes Scholars to create organic unity.

1h51m Rhodes Roundtable supports “Union Now”, via Pilgrims Society, also seeking Organic Unity with Britain, origins of Apartheid in South Africa, Jan Smuts and Wholism as the philosophy of the British Empire (plunder rebranded as freedom)

1h57m “Union Now” and the liberal education at St. John’s University and the University of Chicago, Leo Strauss, Neocons, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and the origins of the Great Books of the Western World

2h3m Encyclopedia Britannica bought by William Benton vs. The Great Books of the Western World, Benton worked with R. Gordon Wasson, Bank of International Settlements

2h5m Benton and “Fat Man’s Class” sought to proliferate sophism into the business community, Henry Luce’s support, “The Romance of Commerce and Culture”, Walter Paepke, importation of Prussian/German culture into business and politics, boxing up our culture to bring concensus by de-individualizing and holding conflicting thoughts is the norm.

2h7m Great Books of the Western World and Eugenics, signers of the GBWW project (several Union Now supporters & Rhodes Scholars among other collectivist groups seeking organic unity for Anglo-Saxon Establishment power structures)

2h9m Society for the Cincinnatus and the ominous continuity of these ideas, Mirabeau as a member of the Social Circle, hereditary orders to create organic unity, Walter Paepke as founder of the Aspen Institute which funded the GBWW, founded on commemoration date of Goethe, ex-Bavarian Illuminati; origin of Aspen’s popularity and the Noble Lie

2h10m Leo Strauss at St. John’s University as a Scott Buchanan Scholar

2h11m GBWW to impart culture to common man, a scarcity not circulated in 70 years, a legacy of organic unity being propagated via Classical Trivium

H.G. Wells’ most consistent political ideal was the World State. He stated in his autobiography that from 1900 onward he considered a World State inevitable. He envisioned the state to be a planned society that would advance science, end nationalism, and allow people to progress by merit rather than birth. In 1932, he told Young Liberals at the University of Oxford that progressive leaders must become liberal fascists or enlightened Nazis in order to implement their ideas.[35]In 1940, Wells published a book called The New World Order that outlined his plan as to how a World Government will be set up.

2h18m Technocracy to control the thoughts of the polity, C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards “The Meaning of Meaning”, imparting of Liberal Arts to create civil polity, language as technology to control polity

2h20m Inherent rights (negative rights) vs. Positive Rights (arcane laws of governance and authority), “Fire in the Minds of Men” by James H. Billington (Rhodes Scholar & Librarian of Congress), the need to preserve oral traditions and the attack of our culture to manipulate our perceptions, thus to create organic unity, the use of cybernetics to wage psychological warfare, using the mind as the harness of human resources, Stephen Biko “the most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor are the minds of the oppressed.”

2h22m Ludwig Wittgenstein, I.A. Richards, and manipulating language to control perceptions in cybernetics, Macy Conferences of cybernetic applications, and “New Criticism” to decontextualize historical documents, thus re-defining liberty by separating literature from history. Rhodes/Milner Roundtable participation in supporting “New Criticism” and decontextualizing history to create organic unity; which evolved from the Prussian Nationalism which preceded it.

2h25m Frank Aydelotte (Rhodes Scholar) on Classical Trivium and Organic Unity, “spelling” to use words to further “liberty” in British terms.

2h26m Lord Percy v. Thomas Jefferson,

2h27m Arnold Toynbee and analogical reasoning using the Classical Trivium to promote British organic unity

2h33m SUMMARY: By changing the terms and definitions throughout history, the theme of controlling the polity by means of irrational means has thus far been successful. Our voluntary servitude to ideas which are unreality, continues to be the problem; learning and asking substantial questions and finding valid answers continues to be the solution.

2h34m Kevin Cole’s closing statement, the logic behind the liberal arts education, slavery vs. free minds, the perpetuation of organic unity throughout time to create slave vs. free dichotomy. In America rights were inherent, not because you’re become a subservient slave to the state.

Wow what a powerful history lesson that I missed at school… Compliments to all involved, and wow how you guys remember names is incredible!

I just wanted to mention as side note comment of Interest. On one of Jan’s other recent casts “Jose Barrera Interview, Pt. 2 – “Supernatural: Magic and Spelling as Mind Control” – #157″

I commented on the forum/podcast/..157 that Credo Mutwa a Zulu Shaman. In his interview link I posted, he mentions how there is deep seated unease by traditional leaders who saw through Cecil John Rhode’s motives and their displeasure in having the colonizer buried on top of the Matopos Hills. A sacred African burial site reserved for their great kings. I find it ironical similar to how the Romans invented the new testament to get their enemies to worship them.

Excellent discussion and extremely helpful for those, like myself, who have often been puzzled and fascinated by the old cliche of Britain and America being divided by a common language.
Extremely thorough and insightful, opens many paths into the history of ideas for deeper forays into intellectual history generally.
As Russell writes in his History of Western Philosophy “Aristotle’s metaphysics, roughly speaking, may be described as Plato diluted by common sense. He is difficult because Plato and common sense do not mix easily…” Ch.XIX para.9
Richard reminds us we can go back even further to Indian ideas and their influence on the Greek mind; and what of ancient China?
What makes the present era so interesting is that we now enjoy unprecedented access to virtually all the thought processes and cultural artifacts that have brought us this far. What we do with this knowledge, how we internalize it and make it our own, is entirely up to us.

This interview exposed the enormous amount of conjecture and BS about the trivium that has been endlessly preached by Gnostic Media and Tragedy And Hope. I’m sure I’m speaking on behalf of many who feel the same way.

What kind of education do the elite in society receive? It’s certainly not the trivium, as you so quickly had reasoned to conclude without any substantial proof to back it up.

If our rights are inherent, why do I need to “think critically” to be free?

And, why should I continue to use the trivium method, which is an obvious misunderstanding of the classical trivium on the part of a “self-taught scholar.”What’s wrong with relying on our inherent capacity to reason?

What questions weren’t answered in the video? If you’ve paid attention to the work we’ve been putting out, we have ALWAYS explained that the trivium was used for mind control. If you haven’t caught on to that, you weren’t paying attention – hence why you’re having an emotional reaction – as you clearly haven’t studied the trivium thoroughly to understand what it is. That’s why you ask such thoughtless questions:

“If our rights are inherent, why do I need to “think critically” to be free?”

There was 3 years of grammar alone that had to be done to flush all of the misapplication of the trivium out. Gene has always explained from day one that it was used for control – by the elites, the Masons and many others. This was always made very, very clear for anyone who actually studied any of the material.

That’s the entire point of LEARNING IT, so that you ESCAPE how it’s USED FOR CONTROL. You have to KNOW IT. That was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of releasing it! To level the playing field for EVERYONE – as has been discussed repeatedly – even in this video that you clearly didn’t study all the way through – as you also clearly haven’t studied the trivium.

Notice the name of the video is TRIVIUM METHOD vs. CLASSICAL TRIVIUM.

The only thing that’s being distinguished as new in this video is the additional grammar on the CLASSICAL version of the trivium and HOW it was USED for CONTROL, and making a CLEAR DISTINCTION between THAT, that’s taken out of order as we’ve often explained, vs. the TRIVIUM METHOD that puts it all back into order so that you can see through the control that’s being used against you – for FREEDOM – as was very clearly distinguished in this video.

If you want to be controlled by those who misuse it, then don’t study it and live in ignorance – “Why do I need to “think critically” to be free” – why think at all? Why not believe every bit of bullshit that comes your way without a systematic way to verify it? Then you could just BELIEVE you’re free without actually BEING FREE – as is explained in ALL of the MIND CONTROL MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE – SUCH AS BY ALDOUS HUXLEY:

But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

It seems you weren’t even paying attention to what this video had to say, as the video explained that what Gene has put forth is the first time it’s been used for FREEDOM – the TRIVIUM METHOD – as Gene called it. Can you show us were we haven’t said it was used for control by the elites – since DAY 1?

The point of learning the liberal arts, the point of learning to ask who what where and when before you determine why is so that you find truth, and not to be mislead by myths that have been spun by the sophists to control us with the misapplication of these arts. We have long explained that truth in the trivium was replaced by Deus, or God, and religious agendas. We’ve explained all along how this is done. Of course the elites MISUSE this, that’s why you need to learn it the right way so that it can’t be misused against you. The occult is only occulted by your own INGOR-ANCE. You’ve got to use your head. You’ve got to think, you’ve got to ask who what where why why and how – always.

What Kevin fails to distinguish clearly is that simple forms of control, like putting logic before grammar, are the misapplication of the trivium and not its true form. He doesn’t explain the difference when he just says “trivium” each time. He needs to be more clear.

Try to watch and listen to the video all the way through again.

Obviously the education the elites get is learning how to apply this against others. How are you going to be free if you can’t think, if you can’t ask who what where when why and how to discover who even controls and manipulates you?

“If our rights are inherent, why do I need to “think critically” to be free?”

Seriously, man? If you can’t even ask intelligent questions, how can you expect to be free *just because*?

But it seems that you leaped to emotional conclusions before reading the title of this talk, or listening to it and what was being said carefully. So please listen and study again to what is actually being said, and go back and listen to the other presentations and numerous interviews where we’ve repeatedly discussed how it’s always been used for control of others – and then show us how we didn’t do so.

Excuse me, sir, but I hadn’t come to an emotional conclusion. Why would I be asking those questions if I had?

Jan, I respect all that you do, I really do. It just seems that there’s been a lot of material about the trivium that has been dispensated without proper research.

Sure, I’ve heard it been said that the trivium has been used to manipulate people in society by putting “logic before grammar,” but that is completely inconsistent with the form of manipulation presented by Kevin, who stated that it was used to create a closed system in which the concept of “freedom” was to reside.

And if I’m not mistaken, you had strongly encouraged your audience to read The Great Books Of The Western World because you were completely unaware that they were used to create this “enkyklios paideia.”

When Gene Odening imparted his knowledge of the trivium, he spoke without the knowledge of its use to create a closed-system.

And besides, look at the sources of your knowledge of the trivium. You constantly referred us to Dorothy Sayers, who Kevin exposed as an imperialist, and Christians who sought a home-schooling movement. They obviously had their own agendas.

It seems like you have taken this “trivium method” too seriously. As Kevin said many times during the talk, we have an inherent capacity to reason. There is no evidence to show that great thinkers and inventors of the past cared for such methodologies, because they understood that we are innately capable of rational thought.

Jan Irvin

March 10, 2013 at 4:58 pm

“Excuse me, sir, but I hadn’t come to an emotional conclusion. Why would I be asking those questions if I had?

Jan, I respect all that you do, I really do. It just seems that there’s been a lot of material about the trivium that has been dispensated without proper research.

Sure, I’ve heard it been said that the trivium has been used to manipulate people in society by putting “logic before grammar,” but that is completely inconsistent with the form of manipulation presented by Kevin, who stated that it was used to create a closed system in which the concept of “freedom” was to reside.

And if I’m not mistaken, you had strongly encouraged your audience to read The Great Books Of The Western World because you were completely unaware that they were used to create this “enkyklios paideia.”

When Gene Odening imparted his knowledge of the trivium, he spoke without the knowledge of its use to create a closed-system.

And besides, look at the sources of your knowledge of the trivium. You constantly referred us to Dorothy Sayers, who Kevin exposed as an imperialist, and Christians who sought a home-schooling movement. They obviously had their own agendas.

It seems like you have taken this “trivium method” too seriously. As Kevin said many times during the talk, we have an inherent capacity to reason. There is no evidence to show that great thinkers and inventors of the past cared for such methodologies, because they understood that we are innately capable of rational thought.”

The answers to your questions are in the video, had you not responded emotionally, attacking.

The trivium, period, is how the control systems work. The only way Kevin or any of us were able to discover how this is done is by grammar first – asking who what where when and why – and removing the contradictions.

Again, I said above that they’ve inserted their god or Dues in place of truth. And putting logic before grammar is only one way, as not giving it at all is another.

Yes, of course you should read the great books of the Western World, so that you can see how all of this stuff is based down generation after generation. Why wouldn’t you study it?

Yes, the misapplication of the trivium is a closed system, that’s what the elites have sold, that’s what the masons sell too. But can you show were what Gene has exposed is a closed system? In fact, that’s been shown how it’s not, and in fact, Rich and Kevin discussed these points and the differences in the video itself.

Gene was very clear in how it was used as a system of control, and he expose all of this. Whether he called it a “close-system” or not is irrelevant, as the study of the trivium itself reveals that. Had you studied it you’d know that and wouldn’t be here resorting to fallacies, obviously having not learned a thing about not killing the messenger and studying things on their own merit before you judge them. The trivium, genius, does NOT teach you WHAT to think, but HOW to think, and how to gather and fact check information, on the basis of some very simple questions: who what where when why and how, and removing the contradictions and fallacies from what remains. There is no other method to achieve this, there is no other method to gather information. That’s just idiocy to think otherwise.

Did we, or Kevin, or Rich or anyone else ever say not to study Dorothy Sayers? Why wouldn’t you study her? Did you not learn the fallacies, such as killing the messenger? The only way to find the truth is to study it, not to dismiss things with fallacious thinking as you are here. Apparently one of the primary premises of the trivium has escaped you – to remove the fallacies from your own thinking.

We have always used the Christian sources as tools, as Gene has long said, there are NO agenda free tools on the Trivium available, so using the trivium itself, and some critical thinking, you just remove their agendas. It’s pretty easy if you actually had studied the trivium and didn’t sit here resorting to more fallacies and killing the messenger. That you’d think you shouldn’t study Sayers and the Christian stuff is about as absent of Trivium thought as you could get.

Do you even know what this trivium method is? How does one take “who what where when why and how” too seriously? That’s absurd. What’s being taken too seriously is your own fallacies and not studying things thoroughly yourself, when, again, the only way it can be used against you is via your own ignorance – which was already made clear to you. You either learn it, or you’ll be enslaved by it. And being that you’re already resorting to thinking with lies, you’re already one step closer to be being controlled by it.

We have always put it in order and have always showed how it’s used for control. That more specifics in the details of how the elites used it is irrelevant. There is quite a lot of evidence to show that great thinkers and inventors of the passed cared for such things, as the scientific method is based on it. You clearly have studied nothing that we’ve put out on the subject at all, as this was also covered.

Go sell your be ignorant of your predators someplace else. Here we don’t use fear and we do use who what where when why and how – or grammar, logic, and rhetoric – which is the ONLY way you know ANYTHING. Use your brains.

Aryo Tidesson

March 11, 2013 at 8:21 am

I’m having some problems. In the course of doing research on the Trivium, I thought it wise to get some background on “Gene Odening.” NOTHING of any significance shows up in any Internet search engine. Why? Is he only accessible in book form? If that’s the solution, that isn’t free material, and not necessarily mandatory to believe this guy on a whim. If he truly has credentials, besides being only found associated with Trivium education, Tragedy and Hope and Gnostic Media links on the web, he cannot be believed in any significant way. That should raise a red flag.

[Go sell your be ignorant of your predators someplace else. Here we don’t use fear and we do use who what where when why and how – or grammar, logic, and rhetoric – which is the ONLY way you know ANYTHING.]

I remember being raised a fundamentalist Christian, having been told over and over, ad infinitum, how the Bible is the ONLY way you know ANYTHING. To claim it’s not the Bible this time, but actually the Trivium – well, that’s pretty much a turn-off.

Rather than using circumstantial ad hominem fallacies to attack the man, try focusing on the research. Why is it each of you who are here attacking us haven’t even bothered to study what he’s saying. Seriously, if you get confused over who what where when why and how, you need to go back to second grade, not investigate Gene Odening.

Yes, so you may email him and talk to him. Again, any claims you make against him, the onus of proof falls on you, genius. That’s why one is innocent until proven guilty. So cough up your research and evidence against him, or shut the fuck up.

Rather than using circumstantial ad hominem fallacies to attack the man, try focusing on the research. Why is it each of you who are here attacking haven’t even bothered to study what he’s saying – or the trivium? Seriously, if you get confused over who what where when why and how, you need to go back to second grade, not investigate Gene Odening.

Do tell us, oh Aryo, how who what where when why and how is fundamentalism? I can’t wait to hear this one. Do tell us how you possibly gather information in any other way – but asking these fundamental questions which you were taught in grammar school. Seriously, explain how you gather information! What information are you gathering? Who wrote it? When? Why did they write it? Duh!

It doesn’t take a genius or rocket scientist to figure out that this is the only way you have to gather and verify information in the world around you. If you think that’s fundamentalism, then I leave you to Jesus and your own ignorance. But absence of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy. Again, you think with fallacies – or lies. The onus of proof falls on you to show that if someone doesn’t have evidence of a crime, then he’s guilty of your delusions and should not be trusted. Never mind that the onus of proof falls on you to prove your case against him, as in any court of law – one is INNOCENT until proven guilty. I can’t believe I’m even having such a stupid conversation. What an unbelievable lack of cognizance and critical thinking in such statements. Maybe you should take a basic college logic course.

Gene never wrote a book. Gene only explained this stuff for free on my show and in many phone conversations with us and our study group. All of the information that Gene has put out is available for free on all of his interviews here and elsewhere. That you’d argue that he’d have to pay for and give you any published work for free is again your own fallacious thinking, your lazy hippie attitude, and your own patheticness. All anyone of any type of research has to do is provide their citations and where to study the information – which he did in an entire study sheet that he also put out for free.

But my god, the amount of ad hominem attack here and total lack of critical thinking – revealing that you’ve actually studied NOTHING about the trivium and NOTHING he’s ever put out:
“If he truly has credentials, besides being only found associated with Trivium education, Tragedy and Hope and Gnostic Media links on the web, he cannot be believed in any significant way. That should raise a red flag.”

Who: Gene Odening is a guy Jan Irvin got priceless evidence of a trivium from via various phone calls and perhaps personal emails.

What: what credentials, background, etc, does Odening have outside of alleged phone calls or emails from him. The “what” doesn’t tell me much so far.

Where: where did Odening get all this information? Where is all of this trivium information which he details quite well in the trivium notes I downloaded for free on the web? Where is the outside corroborating evidence? I found none on this version of the trivium. I did find, however, much corroboration for the classical trivium. I actually have a copy of Sister Miriam Joseph’s The Trivium book that I ordered and I read; however, while much of the material is solid, I do have issues with her Catholic ideology seeping its way in; inasmuch as saying, paraphrase, “humans, in the cognitive capacities, are superior to the dumb animals.” This is not a logical fallacy, because I am not throwing this book out just because I may not agree with a few issues. Irvin doesn’t commit the fallacy either, of course, when he interviews Christians like Ian Taylor. It’s a sign of good thinking to be able to wade through all the bullshit.

Why: why does Odening promote this version of a trivium vs. the classical version? Again, I would have to cycle back up to the previous grammar points, BUT this leaves me hanging still because those aforementioned grammar tools do not give me enough information. I could email Odening like Irvin suggests, but still, since Irvin admits Odening has no outside credentials in the way of any scholarly book of any kind, it leaves me hanging. I would have to just take Irvin’s word for it. Odening must indeed be certified for saying what he does because of a bunch of phone calls, and perhaps emails. There could be a whole bunch of “whys” but this one is important to start with.

How: how did Irvin PERSONALLY get involved with someone such as Odening? If, Irvin, you’ve mentioned it before, show it to me in writing. By what resource did you, at first, discover Odening? Why was it necessary, in your mind, Mr. Irvin, to use Odening’s version of the trivium as a good primer? What were your personal motives?

You see, the who what where why and how questions can be cycled here very many times. But it still ultimately falls back and the background credentials of Mr. Odening. And the personal motives for you, Irvin, to clamor to his teachings.

[Never mind that the onus of proof falls on you to prove your case against him, as in any court of law – one is INNOCENT until proven guilty.]

Nevermind that our court of law is corrupt in it’s legal process. To fall back on “innocent until proven guilty” adheres to the philosophy of punitive action. Instead, why not base our laws on merit? This here is an easy one to pick at, inasmuch as Gnostic Media has eschewed the fallacy of government authority.

Christian humanist? What is a Christian humanist? Again, a brief look at the Wikipedia:

“Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism. It regards humanist principles like universal human dignity and individual freedom and the primacy of human happiness as essential and principal components of, or at least compatible with, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christian humanism can be perceived as a philosophical union of Judeo-Christian ethics and humanist principles.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

Yes, Sayers would probably say Jesus was historical. But, being a humanist materialist, it would also be no surprise she would advocate her view of a trivium method. A materialist goes googly-eyed at the five senses.

And yes, Kevin Cole is correct exposing her as an imperialist. No surprise here, Christianity is an imperialist system.

You’re getting off track and using too many ad hominems. I could care less about her background unless her work doesn’t check out. I already know her blindness is caused by her Catholicism – as the cover of the book says clearly “Sister” – with her picture as a nun in the back. It’s pretty clear where her agendas lie, just as it is with the Bluedorns who put out fantastic info for teaching the trivium to children, but that you ignore because they’re Christian, killing the messenger and using ad hominems to dismiss what they have to say. You can see their agenda when they tell their Christian audiences not to study certain classical books -as it would make them question their religious beliefs! Gasp! So what? Use your knowledge an ability of removing the fallacies (which you clearly haven’t developed yet), and apply it to the information and take what’s valid. It doesn’t matter if Joseph is 95% full of shit, if 5% is profound. That’s the entire point of the method that Gene has taught in comparison to these others. There’s no agenda to avoid certain information and “don’t look there”! It shows you how to remove ALL fallacies in YOUR OWN thoughts and study ALL information to reach CERTAINTY via the 5 senses, and leaves room open should any new information come in, with an easy historical path of how you determined your conclusions in the past to review if and when you so need.

Who: Gene Odening is a guy Jan Irvin got priceless evidence of a trivium from via various phone calls and perhaps personal emails.

It is a fact that the trivium is and has been used for thousands of years, as this very video shows. Again, Kevin and Rich are not disproving Gene Odening, but showing the history of how the trivium is used for mind control – as Gene Odening himself explained.

What: what credentials, background, etc, does Odening have outside of alleged phone calls or emails from him. The “what” doesn’t tell me much so far.

An appeal to authority, as one only needs to provide the citations and evidence of their claims – the onus of proof, which Gene supplied. Credentials, background, etc, are circumstantial ad hominems and bare nothing on the information itself. See your fallacies already noted above. Your “what” doesn’t tell you much because you’re too busy attacking the messenger, rather than actually studying the message. This is known as the fallacy of killing the messenger – discussed in the material, and is purely fallacious thinking on your part.

Where: where did Odening get all this information? Where is all of this trivium information which he details quite well in the trivium notes I downloaded for free on the web? Where is the outside corroborating evidence? I found none on this version of the trivium. I did find, however, much corroboration for the classical trivium. I actually have a copy of Sister Miriam Joseph’s The Trivium book that I ordered and I read; however, while much of the material is solid, I do have issues with her Catholic ideology seeping its way in; inasmuch as saying, paraphrase, “humans, in the cognitive capacities, are superior to the dumb animals.” This is not a logical fallacy, because I am not throwing this book out just because I may not agree with a few issues. Irvin doesn’t commit the fallacy either, of course, when he interviews Christians like Ian Taylor. It’s a sign of good thinking to be able to wade through all the bullshit.

Gene provided his citations in the study notes, which you did not study. The trivium study notes are and have always been on the http://www.triviumeducation.com website, along with his email and other contact information – which was made available for free for anyone who actually studied it. The outside corroborating evidence is in the material itself that you never bothered to study – aside from one book, so therefore you’re committing argumentum ad ignorantium. Just because you’re too lazy to study something, doesn’t mean the evidence and material isn’t there – that you simply ignored. Gene never once suggested to follow along with Sister Joseph’s Catholic ideology, and explained very clearly that that is her agenda. He also explained very clearly, as already stated, that there is NO published material to date on the trivium that doesn’t have such hidden agendas. This is found throughout the work, and is why you have to use the trivium itself to filter such nonsense. Joseph fell prey to the “appeal to belief” fallacy. The entire idea of the trivium and removing fallacies is to learn how to go through it and spot their fallacies, just as you have done. The irony you fail to see, is that if Gene was a part of this grand conspiracy that you’ve failed to provide any evidence for, he actually gave you the very tools to discover such a conspiracy! Did not Gene repeatedly explain to not use fallacies to dismiss authors and research? How would you possibly know what they say if you dismissed them because they were Catholic, didn’t have the right “credentials”, etc? This was made clear from day 1 and is irrelevant, as the trivium itself, when applied properly and in order – and with the fallacies removed – reveals Joseph’s own agenda and fallacious thinking. Again, this was and has been made clear hundreds of times. Yes, it’s a logical fallacy again on your part. So why are you bringing this up then if you actually agree? That doesn’t make any sense.

Why: why does Odening promote this version of a trivium vs. the classical version? Again, I would have to cycle back up to the previous grammar points, BUT this leaves me hanging still because those aforementioned grammar tools do not give me enough information. I could email Odening like Irvin suggests, but still, since Irvin admits Odening has no outside credentials in the way of any scholarly book of any kind, it leaves me hanging. I would have to just take Irvin’s word for it. Odening must indeed be certified for saying what he does because of a bunch of phone calls, and perhaps emails. There could be a whole bunch of “whys” but this one is important to start with.

Gene, as he explains himself many times, promotes this version because historically any other version has been corrupted and used for control. You can see it in the process itself, and how our politicians, MSM, teachers, et al, constantly use the appeal to authority and get children, and adults, to accept their authority and put logic, or conclusions, before asking who what where and when before determining why and explaining how. The reasoning is revealed in the method itself, and a historical study reveals how this has been taken out of order to confuse and control people. To break it down simply as we have hundreds of times, thinking of it in terms of a computer Gene’s method is made clear: grammar = input = your keyboard, DVD drive, downloads, etc. Logic = processing = your computer’s CPU and its function to make things run – and when there’s a contradiction or fallacy – you get a system crash. Rhetoric = output = what you print, what shows on your screen, what you hear from the speakers, etc. Obviously if you take any of this out of order, you have a serious problem. In computers it’s known as “garbage in, garbage out”. You have to have valid grammar, or input, or who what where and when, before you can process or output anything. This in and of itself is corroboration of the methodology and reveals how others have used it for control, as simply watching a TV commercial or MSM media reveals that they’re entirely based on fallacies and manipulation of people’s emotions and getting them to put logic before grammar. But your appeal to credentials, rather than the information itself, is again, a fallacy, an appeal to authority and killing the messenger, rather than focusing on the message and verifying the research itself. This is poor thinking. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, as the study sources and material are and have always been provided, and again, if you simply study it and apply it, you’ll see it for yourself. The trivium as Gene teaches it does not teach what to think, but how. With your reasoning, anyone who doesn’t have some government licensed certification can not have any valid information. How’s that so? Do explain. If you studied the trivium and even Joseph, you’d know that this is fallacious.

How: how did Irvin PERSONALLY get involved with someone such as Odening? If, Irvin, you’ve mentioned it before, show it to me in writing. By what resource did you, at first, discover Odening? Why was it necessary, in your mind, Mr. Irvin, to use Odening’s version of the trivium as a good primer? What were your personal motives?

If you had studied the trivium material as you claim, this has been explained many, many times. I had been researching the 7s for many years for writing my book A&S, and the 7 liberal arts kept coming up but we couldn’t figure out how they connected. Gene had written a piece for Alexandra Robins, debunking her latest book, and had forwarded it to me. I read it and asked him to present it. But again, this is irrelevant and all you’re wanting to do is use circumstantial ad hominems and appeal to authority, rather than studying and applying it and doing your own grammar and trusting your own 5 senses and seeing for yourself. If you go through ALL of the trivium material as is laid out here and on triviumeducation.com – and if you actually study all of the recommended material which you’ve ignored, you’ll see that this has all been made clear, and even in our weekly study groups that you failed to partake in, which anyone could join via Tragedy & Hope, and went on for well over a year. I already explained why i use Odening’s version – as it reveals the agendas in all of the others. The proof’s in the pudding. What are my personal motives? To free guys like you from mind control and from fallacious thinking, because, as the Buddha once said, “We all suffer if only one is ignorant amongst us”. If you had studied my show and the research I’ve already put out, if you had actually done grammar on what’s already published, if you had studied all of the trivium and quadrivium material as laid out, this would have already been made clear to you without appealing to my authority to make it clear for you. We have to get you to learn to trust your own 5 senses, to have self-esteem to trust yourself and discover truth and not think repeatedly with fallacies like your appeal to authority, your circumstantial ad hominems, your argumentum ad ignorantium, etc… when you use such faulty thinking, as I explained in my interview with Mark Passio on the trivium and mind control – we all suffer.

You see, the who what where why and how questions can be cycled here very many times. But it still ultimately falls back and the background credentials of Mr. Odening. And the personal motives for you, Irvin, to clamor to his teachings.

It fails, again, because you’re too focused on attacking Odening, rather than studying the message. Again, your circular circumstantial ad hominems fail you and cost everyone else. Here I sit wasting my morning addressing your fallacies that have been covered hundreds of times in the last 3.5 years. I’m having to cater to your laziness and lack of study – because you misuse who what where and when and randomly chase after your own fallacies rather than focusing on the who what where and when of the message itself.

[Never mind that the onus of proof falls on you to prove your case against him, as in any court of law – one is INNOCENT until proven guilty.]

Nevermind that our court of law is corrupt in it’s legal process. To fall back on “innocent until proven guilty” adheres to the philosophy of punitive action. Instead, why not base our laws on merit? This here is an easy one to pick at, inasmuch as Gnostic Media has eschewed the fallacy of government authority.

This is a red herring and irrelevant. Again I deal with your fallacious thinking. Then in logic, as well as court, the onus falls on the person making any claim. Did you study absolutely nothing? Why not base laws on merit? very good question. Why not base your claims on reality and things you can prove, genius? So you think that someone should have a merit badge to be innocent or guilty – rather than instead using the available evidence available in reality itself that you can verify with your 5 senses? What if you were accused of a crime that you didn’t commit but didn’t have the right merit badge to prove your innocence? Seriously, dude, that’s pretty retarded. Using the example of innocent until proven guilty whether in court, or in logic and reality, is irrelevant to the appeal to authority and ritual magic that forms government itself. Do you think you could stay on topic and not think with so many fallacies? In reality, in any place in the world, critical thought requires you prove your case and not think with lies to do it. You could claim there is a green fairy in the corner. The onus of proof is on you to prove there is, not on me to prove there isn’t. You can’t prove a negative. It’s logic, genius. If you had studied the logic books provided, the Peikoff material provided – for $10 rather than whining that it wasn’t free, you’d have already learned that. That you could expect everyone to put out there work and time for free is just pathetic. Anyway, I’m done. Your logic has failed you, and you need to go back and study your lessons. Cheers.

How the hell can you claim ‘the mind’ can quantitatively contained, measured, or controlled? It’s a mere label. Prove to me you can contain ‘mind’ to actively prove, furthermore, that people are mind-controlled. Sure, you can alter brain activity, but the ‘mind’ isn’t contained by the brain, as per your classical, Cartesian model advocates. Hence, this is why you rant against quantum physics. I have read and listened to David Harriman, and quite frankly, he’s been debunked. If you still rely on Newtonian classic physics, then you’ve got a lot of marathon running up the mountain to find your sacred cow. Try interviewing QUANTUM PHYSICS interviewees sometime, instead of only interviewing the people whom you agree with.

Just TRY to disprove ALL the NDEs: there are LOTS of trivium binding material here to study. But, no, you cannot trust your 5 senses for these kinds of phenomena.

[An appeal to authority, as one only needs to provide the citations and evidence of their claims – the onus of proof, which Gene supplied.]

That’s not an appeal to authority. Authorities exist, yet you seem to conflate it with QUESTIONING authority, which is really what the logical fallacy is all about. There are many ‘authorities’ which are well intentioned. Are you not an authority on Gnostic Media? Who are you to trust, if you cannot cite credentials? There are conspiracy nuts all over the web who claim to be an authority on something, yet they lack credentials, and I can easily spot their bullshit.

Actually, fact-checking persons, places and things etc, are in fact what doing your grammar is all about.

[Gene provided his citations in the study notes, which you did not study.]

Actually, I did. I checked, for example, Odening’s claim that, paraphrase, “this trivium goes back to the caste system of the Brahmins. Huh? Can’t really find anything validating that claim, unless it’s in a book, which I would be happy if you could perhaps source me that one.

[This was made clear from day 1 and is irrelevant, as the trivium itself, when applied properly and in order]

There is no ‘trivium’ applied in a right order contra the classical version, so either you’ve made it up, along with Odening, or you’ve bought into the so-called order of Albert Pike, a well-known Freemason. I’ve seen the evidence you present from Pike, and it isn’t very honest to cite Pike for a “new version of the trivium.”

[because, as the Buddha once said,]

Funny you drag the Buddha into this. However, the Buddha didn’t rely on the “5 senses.” He relied on the mind, which, in Buddhism, doesn’t refer to the brain alone.

And, as for the rest of the post you wrote, it’s all about use your 5 senses, use your 5 senses, use your five senses…goes the mantra. Again, this Cartesian materialism has been exposed by top scholars and freethinkers and quantum physics, which is, again, why you only deal with the people who think they’ve discredited quantum mechanics in your interviews. And, furthermore, this is why you always stress Dorothy Sayers for the trivium – because Sayers, if you do the research, was a Christian humanist materialist. And materialists, using the 5 senses, try to merge spirituality, DMT visions, holy mushrooms with materialism.

Aryo, did you just read anything I wrote? The onus of proof is NOT ON ME TO DISPROVE ANYTHING. One can’t prove a negative. Get it? It’s really simple common sense. The onus of proof is on those who think with fallacies to prove their claims. If you’ve got a green fairy in the corner you’d like to sell, then prove it’s there. It’s not on me to prove your green fairy doesn’t exist. It’s on you to prove it does. It’s simple common fucking sense – of which apparently you’ve none of.

Again, Gene’s background bares nothing on the research itself. This is an ad hominem – attacking the man, rather than the message, which you also haven’t even studied thoroughly. You’re all over the place with your befuddled mind. If you had valid evidence to question, then maybe you’d have something. But again, only a moron would think that no evidence is evidence of a crime. You weren’t in the location of the murder, and there is no evidence to place you there, and since there is NOTHING that can show you were or weren’t there, YOU MUST BE GUILTY OF THE MURDER – unless you have a merit badge! Do you hear your own stupidity? This is why logic and critical thinking are so important.

You seem to fail to understand what the appeal to authority means, and when and how it’s used, but this is no surprise, but I do find it ironic that someone who is against critical thought and knowing the fallacies is attempting to apply them, however erroneous his application. See my 4 part series with Larken Rose for starters.

If I reference Gene’s citations, this isn’t an appeal to Gene, it’s an appeal to the citations which you’ve failed to show a single error with. You want to attack him but you’ve failed to show any reason why he shouldn’t be trusted. You’ve failed the onus of proof.

Regarding Gene saying that it goes back to the Brahmin class, did you contact him and ask him where that idea came from? I actually know as he and I have discussed this at length, but since you continue to think with fallacies, you can’t see that the structure of caste societies, ours and theirs, have always been based on sophism and using logic to fool people. And your head is too much of a mindless disaster to just ask him for the citation. Again, if you had the brains to spend a few weeks studying, you’d have figured all of this out all on your own.

Again, the grammar you’re doing is to attack the messenger, rather than doing grammar on the history of the message itself – such as the video does – or studying the ancient Hindu caste system and see how they applied their mind control, or just asking Gene for the specific reference. Gene’s background, again, unless YOU can prove otherwise, bares nothing on the research or this conversation. And even if you have something, you then have to go point by point and show how said evidence effects each and every claim and point. Of course you’ve failed this as well on every level.

Again, you have to think. Obviously how it’s used for control, for fooling people, is to take it out of order. I already explained to you how it works. You can use your brains and apply it yourself for a minute and see for yourself HOW it works, or not.

I have brought up Pike and I specifically said that Pike takes it out of order – grammar, rhetoric and logic – and that he uses it for control. Pay attention. The masons, as we discussed in the trivium interviews, have always misrepresented it for control. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t study what Pike had to say, as the Masons, as I already noted, have always presented it out of order. Must you go in circles? Must you always use fallacies rather than read what myself or Pike actually says? Why do you choose to be controlled by all of these lies and your thoughtlessness? You’re like a fucking sheep.

Pike didn’t use the word Trivium, and the moron your referencing here didn’t bother to realize that grammar, logic, and rhetoric are in fact the trivium, taken out of order or misrepresented how ever, this is in fact Pike’s reference to the trivium. The moron who tried to fact check Kevin and I searched the word “trivium” and couldn’t find it – when it was on page 861 – the last page of the book, and then said moron lied about it because it didn’t say the word “trivium” – when it was right on the page in front of him – a breakdown of the 534 triangle and Royal SECRET. Obviously you’re too mindless to check yourself, because you have a fear of reading the words of a mason because you’re controlled by your emotions and fallacies – or lies. The word fallacy comes from the Latin, fallare – to lie, and you love to lie to yourself and everyone else. However, I never once claimed that Pike created a new version of the trivium. This is a flat out lie on your part – a quote you flat out made up and lied about me. So now I can prove you’re intentionally lying as well as using your fallacies from ignorance. As this very video discusses, which you probably didn’t even watch, Masonry is based on the trivium. Please have the brains to study the video in the forum on which you comment.

When you put it in the right order – the trivium method – when you learn to gather information before you attempt to process it, before you stupidly attempt to judge a nothing, only then will you understand how taking it out of order is control. There were the liberal arts and the mechanical and servile arts. It’s a simple fucking matter to use the trivium for control. You either don’t give it, or simply teach it out for order and THAT is how you encircle the mind. Did you even pay attention to Rich and Kevin’s show? Obviously for there to have been a misapplication of the trivium for control, SOMEONE had to know how it was use properly. You can’t misuse it for control unless you have knowledge of how it works in the first place, hence, again, why truth was replaced by Dues – or God, because someone later came along and usurped it. The name it was given in the searches is irrelevant. You’re probably searching, for instance, Brahmins and the trivium – which of course it wasn’t called in Sanskrit. Again, you have to use your brains, that thing between your ears that you hate with all your passion. Maybe you should jut get lobotomized. What the fuck do you need your brain for?

Did the Buddha really rely on mind alone, or is that your own misinterpretation from not having studied what he actually said? Is not the 5 senses part of your awareness of all things? The Buddha most certainly didn’t only preach mind without reality. He taught much about awareness. Awareness comes from the 5 senses.

It is irony that you fail to recognize that in Kabbalistic teachings, to reach the crown you have to go through knowledge, understanding and wisdom; which are: grammar, logic and rhetoric. Did you even study the presentation on the Qabalah, or where you too emotional to do so again there too?

Again, rather than actually using your 5 senses to gather information and do research, you think with fallacies and lies and chase your tail and then wonder why it’s not ok. You mystical religious fanatics and New Agers have caused every Crusade and religious, mystical slaughter and religious war throughout history – with your “I have a fairy in my corner and believe me or I’ll fucking kill you” mentality. You’re no different than the worst Christian or Zionist fundamentalist.

And you refuse to study anything, you refuse to trust your own 5 senses because someone else has told you not to, because someone else has told you that you can reach the crown chakra without thinking, without thought at all – and never once asking who your “thinking” benefits. You dismiss thinking with your mind and using your 5 senses because you have your New Age religious beliefs and agenda to sell, just like the Christians. “Exposed by top scholars and free thinkers and Quantum physics” – that right here on this very show David Harriman proved that Quantum Physics is a fraud – already mentioned on this page. But how do you address the 10 hours of research he provided? You didn’t bother to research any of it. Rather, you used an ad hominem attack and attacked me, rather than the research he presented on it’s own merit. This is the “thinking” of a fool:

“Again, this Cartesian materialism has been exposed by top scholars and freethinkers and quantum physics, which is, again, why you only deal with the people who think they’ve discredited quantum mechanics in your interviews.”

Don’t listen to a thing he provided, figure out a way to attack and dismiss him and then run around like a pigeon playing chess, pretending you’ve won. Well, guess what? Do you know a single item that Harriman presented? Do you think that maybe it’s due to the fraud he exposed as to why we had him on? Why is it so important for you to attack me and him, rather than the work he presented? Are you that insecure? Or are you too stupid? Is it just fear? What’s up with you? Why is every post of yours filled with ad hominem attacks and argumentum ad ignorantium? Why do you think that you could possibly have an intelligent conversation about something you haven’t bothered to study because you’re too fucking lazy pillow sitting and trying to dream up change rather than taking action and making change happen? Why do you feel threatened by others who do effect change and who do real research and who actually read and study things before they attempt to judge them? Do you have an intelligence complex? Did your mommy and daddy call you stupid as a kid, so you have to sound intelligent without ever applying any of the attributes of what intelligence is?

Who are these top scholars and free thinkers? What is their agenda? Did they address Harriman’s work? How so? What were the issues raised? What was the conclusion? You don’t have a single answer, do you?

What history have you done on Quantum Physics – other than the New Age horse shit – truth is arbitrary – nonsense that you’ve been spoon fed, and have never once verified or thought critically about yourself?

You dismiss and attack things because you’re emotional. You have no self-esteem because you don’t trust your own 5 senses to verify things, and you’re left to appeal to everyone else for you thinking – except you. You can’t address specific points, you attack characters and ideas – but you don’t know why you’re attacking them – but it’s clear that it’s only your fear and ignorance which causes this behavior in you.

Dorthy Sayers was a Christian humanism materialist? Wow! So many circumstantial ad hominems. Let me ask you something. Is every single word that she ever wrote or said wrong? How so? Prove it. Did she ever say anything of value or anything that you could learn from, including how it was used for control? Well – Keven certainly found out by READING her, not ignoring her. Just me, I’m against Christians and humanists, et al, but I’m not so stupid to ignore their words as I know these types like to control others, just like you new age fanatics and all of your NWO government and Zeitgeist crap you sell, never once even realizing that your agenda is the same as the elites’ and oligarchs’.

You’ve not addressed anything against Harriman, who disproves quantum physics and has taken the onus of proof on my show and in his lecture series – both provided. You have failed the onus to show a SINGLE POINT that he’s raised as incorrect. You won’t because this nonsense of yours is your religion, and you’re here to lash out against using your own 5 senses and your own mind, out of fear of yourself, rather than to look at things and studying them before you judge them – as intelligence requires. You are one easy guy to mind control. I could just make up what ever shit and lead you around by the fucking nose with all of your fallacies you tell yourself.

Actually, I recommend NEVER taking mushrooms or 5-Meo without knowledge of the trivium, as it’s too easy to mind control fools with such nonsense as you’ve just pointed out. You’ve never once considered how your nonsense controls you. See my last show with Prof. Fikes and Joe Atwill – for instance. This is all discussed at length. Again, research you ignored. What a shocker! I wonder if you’ve ever actually listened to a single show I’ve put out? Or if you’re just some mindless, possibly Zionist, thought puppet? You sure defend all of their ideas and agendas.

Study ALL of the material in the trivium section. If there are specific points that you have issue with, raise them, intelligently, and use the onus of proof to show how they’re wrong. Don’t just sit here barking your unfounded religious beliefs that others told you – all of which you’ve never done the grammar on to see if they’re even valid opinions. That’s why you can’t cite a single name, and even then, if you do, you’ll be fruitless to contrast it with the very extensive information we’ve been putting out that shows how your very beliefs are used for control.

And a million Frenchman can be wrong, just as 10,000 Quantum Physics professors can also be wrong… selling their New Age religion, created by Zionists, as science. Again, this is detailed in the 10+ hours that Harriman provided for your study – free, so you’ve no lazy hippie, positive thinking excuses to give anyone.

Go ahead and continue to believe your Kantian irrationality and your quantum physics and positive thinking spirituality – without ever once questioning who created those ideas and whose agenda it helps to believe them so religiously like a good little zealot. Nearly all religion is used for control, and until you learn to see the fallacies – or lies – in your own thoughts, you will ALWAYS be controlled by them, and therefore, you are also under full mind control of the misapplication of the trivium due to your own IGNOR-ANCE. You are MIND CONTROLLED – Aryo.

Yes, thinking is always a bad thing – to the moron – or the Zionist. It’s no irony that you attack things you’ve never even personally studied. We’re not even discussing Cartesian philosophy here. We’re discussing that 1 + 1 = 2 – ALWAYS. You fools that think when you go to the store it doesn’t matter what change you get, the cashier can’t steel from you because there is no truth – and no proper change. And when you walk out in the parking lot and your car isn’t there, no one stole it, because you’re dumb enough to believe that it could have just popped up anyplace else in the world, arbitrarily, and maybe you never had a car at all.

Go lie to and fool yourself some more. Go soak in your Kantian irrationality and continue to attack things out of ignorance that you refuse to study. I can’t stop you. But eventually, hopefully you’ll tire of all of these lies you tell yourself and everyone else, and these excuses you use for thinking.

The man who attacks things he’s never studied is the most ignorant of all.

Again, I leave you to Jesus, or Yahweh, and your fairy tales. Good luck. Take your anger and name calling and fallacies elsewhere. You’ve been warned.

the quadrivium is more of a quantification system. Where the trivium asks who what where when why and how, the quadrivium deals with numbers and quantities and how to measure things and verify facts in reality that fall out side logic. Mathematics and numbers, while logical, are not logic in themselves. It should also be understood that math should not be used without the trivium to derive theories -as you end up with fallacious bullshit like Quantum Physics – see the David Harriman interviews that expose QP as a fraud. Where logic is the ‘art of non-contradictory identification’ – Quantum physics is essentially quackery to get you not to trust your own 5 senses and to squeeze as many contradictions into one time and space as possible. I’ve researched the background of those who created it, and all of them had very heavy Zionist leanings. They based it on the horseshit philosophy of Immanual Kant (pronounced “cunt”). http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-5165

Arithmetic = number in itself.
Geometry = Number in space
Music = number in time
Astronomy = number in space and time.

But a musician, for instance, would learn that music is all based on notes, and these notes are all based on math, and the math would then reveal how each specific note was created, and how notes and harmony, etc work together. The musicians with such talent are often quite noticable – playing the “classical music” and what not – like Bach. By learning the trivium and the foundations of each, you’d know how the teacher and experts created it, and you’d be on their level with it, rather than, say, each time you want to learn a new song you have to go back and appeal to the authority of the music teacher to give you the strokes of a new tune.

The painter would learn how master paintings are all based on the golden ratio, sacred geometry and the like, and he’d learn how the masters did these things and would learn to do it himself. It goes on and on in this way.

No, I won’t give an explanation, but you’re free to study the Jewish scholars I’ve had on to discuss this already. You’ll find Gilad Atzmon, Prof. Shlomo Sand, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, Rabi Dovid Weiss, etc. You’ll also find Eustace Mullins’ last interview here. You may also read the book The Controversy of Zion.

Any idea when Kevin’s book will be released? It says winter 2013 in the show notes but I have yet to see any sign of when or where it is available for purchase. Kevin seems to be a ghost on the interwebs. Any links to his email, his publisher, ect. would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

BTW

I highly recommend Arthur Lovejoy’s book by the same title. The subject matter compiled is absolutely essential to an understanding of the philosophical and religious developments up to the modern era. Tough read, but well worth the time.

i’m addicted to this website now. i’ve been on it for like 24 hours straight. i have the trivium by the nun lady sister miriam joseph but put it down for now because of the disorder of the arts. i’ll just pick it up again but i’ll start at the grammar section first.